Section 3 – Meeting the requirements of the duty

General positive comments on the steps were that they are
proportionate, helpful, clear, reasonable and logical. Some
respondents suggested slightly different steps, including:

Determining what socio-economic inequalities exist in a
community, and then consider which strategic decisions could
conceivably affect that inequality, rather than considering all
strategic decisions.

Adding an initial step of understanding the broad,
overarching terms about the potential for the public authority's
work to impact on socio-economic inequality.

Adding a step of 'oversight and accountability'

Other suggestions were to:

Keep processes similar to those for the equality duty

Align with poverty-proofing campaigns being championed by
Oxfam Scotland and the Poverty Alliance

Provide information to the Scottish public at all levels on
how power, income and wealth affect health outcomes, to bring
about an acceptance in Scottish society of the need to have
policies that redistribute power, wealth and income (and of the
need for the Scottish parliament to have the full range of powers
necessary to that end).

Ensure the focus is not exclusively on low-income

Use small scale tests of change, to prevent well-intentioned
but ineffective decision making.

Use a logic model approach

Alignment of processes nationally and locally, to limit
duplication of effort (
e.g. in identifying inequalities
of outcome) and allow the cumulative impact of decisions to be
examined

Data for identifying and monitoring inequalities of
outcome

Indicators and data sources

Step 2 suggests three ways of identifying the inequalities of
outcome caused by socioeconomic disadvantage. Respondents
highlighted that these options should not be seen as mutually
exclusive, and that there is a need to look at both quantitative
and qualitative data, from a variety of sources, to build a
comprehensive picture.

It was proposed that there should be an agreed set of indicators
that measure inequalities of outcome, building on the outcomes
listed on page 11 of the consultation document, and to have the
data for these outcomes collected systematically at a local and
national level. For example, using the same indicators as the
Equality and Human Rights Commission's Equality Measurement
Framework would mean a single set of data could be used for both
duties. But it was also recognised that there should be flexibility
to allow locally relevant issues to be exposed, and that public
authorities should have the ability to use local data, knowledge
and expertise to identify inequalities and disadvantage, if this
provides a better solution than national datasets.

Respondents identified a range of gaps in, and/or weaknesses of,
the existing data, including the need for data to be broken down to
local level, and by socioeconomic status. It was highlighted that
absence of data does not indicate a lack of need, and that data
gaps must be proactively identified and filled. It was suggested
that this could be done through the Scottish Government's core and
harmonised data agenda, including household income and expenditure
questions in the Census, and overcoming perceived barriers (
e.g. data protection) to data
sharing and linkage. The data should also be made readily available
- for example, via the 'open data' initiative, or the Scottish
Government's Equality Evidence Finder. And short and accessible
briefings summarising the evidence could be produced.

It was suggested that decision makers would require guidance and
support to help them make sense of the available data, including
understanding its limitations.

Monitoring impact

Perceived benefits of using existing measurement frameworks to
monitor outcomes were that this would increase consistency and
avoid duplication of effort, allow comparison of 'before and
after', and encourage integration of the duty within wider
strategic and operational functions. It was also suggested that
guidance must be clear on how the continuous improvement to
existing monitoring systems could be achieved.

Some public bodies highlighted the importance of knowing what
they would be expected to report on and when, and the possibility
of a universal reporting method – and perhaps even a single
IT system,
building on existing systems – was raised.

Some respondents cautioned that many outcomes will take time to
shift, and highlighted the difficulties in attributing changes in
outcomes to particular decisions. The risk that focussing solely on
a small number of quantitative indicators could lead to 'perverse
incentives' and unintended consequences was also raised. It was
suggested that monitoring of impact should include 'intermediary'
outcomes (
e.g. increased participation,
social capital and socio-economic literacy) as well as longer-term
outcomes, and that methods for evaluating programmes of complex
interventions (
e.g. Realistic Evaluation) should
be used.

Poverty commissions

There was wide recognition of the benefits of the existing
poverty commissions. The importance of learning from existing
research into how they can work most effectively was also
highlighted.

Some respondents expressed concern that establishing a local
poverty commission should not be seen as mandatory, as there would
be resource implications. Limitations of poverty commissions for
non-geographically based public authorities and rural areas were
also mentioned. It was noted that there are already alternative
mechanisms in place that may be just as effective, and suggested
that guidance could include examples of best practice and a brief
self-assessment exercise, to help authorities decide whether their
mechanisms are adequate.

Involving communities

Respondents provided a wide range of examples of, and methods
for, making use of the expertise of people with direct experience
of poverty and other forms of socio-economic disadvantage. These
included:

Poverty Truth Commissions

Poverty Leadership Panel

Service co-design

Participatory budgeting, devolved to the lowest community
level possible

Community Grants

The Place Standard tool

Community Charrettes

Community Forums

Tenancy participation forums

Online surveys

Social media

Collective Advocacy

Participatory Action Research

community development

Locality Partnerships

Citizens' Assemblies

Citizens' Juries

One respondent felt that listing 'involving communities' as the
third way of identifying inequalities of outcome suggests that it
is lower priority than the other two methods. It was also proposed
that community involvement should happen throughout the four steps,
and not just as part of step 2, and that implementation of the
duties, and development of associated guidance, should be
co-designed with people with direct experience of socio-economic
disadvantage.

There was widespread recognition of the value of engaging with
people with direct experience of socioeconomic disadvantage.
However, it was also emphasised that this needed to be done in a
meaningful way, including following the National Standards for
Community Engagement. It was suggested that public bodies would
require support – both financial and in-kind, through
guidance and good practice examples – to allow them to engage
in a meaningful way.

The important of proactively engage with 'seldom heard' groups
was highlighted, to avoid deepening inequalities by further
empowering the best organised communities at the expense of the
most vulnerable and disadvantaged. This is likely to require
community capacity building, as not all communities have the
infrastructure in place that allows them to respond to demands to
engage effectively or to become partners in local initiatives. It
is also important to take into account practical barriers, through
covering childcare and travel costs, and going to the people you
want to engage with.

Some respondents also highlighted the advantages of deeper and
longer-term engagement with a smaller number of people, as this
allows them to build their knowledge of the evidence and the
complex decision-making context, and their confidence and ability
to influence decisions in that context. Stronger links with
community organisations were also recommended.

Reporting and accountability

Public authorities covered by the duty must be able to
show how they are meeting its requirements. This could be written
up as a core component of the decision-making process or a
separate report could be produced annually, showing how the
authority has met the duty in the decisions it has
reached.

Respondents were clear that all reporting should be provided in
an accessible format and on an open access basis. There were
differing views of suitable vehicles for reporting. Some
respondents felt that a separate report was needed, while others
suggested incorporating the duty into existing decision making and
reporting processes, such as Annual Reports, Local Outcome
Implementation Plans, Equality Outcomes and Mainstreaming reports,
Public Services Reform Act annual statements on economic growth,
and annual planning performance frameworks.

There were also differing views on frequency of reporting
– ranging from: every two years, in line with the Equality
Outcomes and Mainstreaming reports; to 'quarterly at least',
reflecting the fact that strategic decisions will be taken on a
rolling basis, justification after the fact must be avoided, and to
allow potential challenge and decision to be amended.

Public authorities could also choose to produce and
publish impact assessments, which may mean, for example, making
adjustments to existing Equality Impact Assessments.

There was broad support for incorporating socioeconomic
considerations into existing equality impact assessment processes,
as these processes are already in place, and this would allow
inter-relationships between socioeconomic and equality
characteristics to be considered. It was suggested that a standard
integrated impact assessment template may be helpful. Some
respondents were of the view that publication of impact assessments
should be mandatory, and there was also a concern that Equality
Impact Assessments are not always carried out effectively or used
to inform decision making, and that there needs to be more done to
understand why this is the case, and to correct it.

Some respondents called for external scrutiny of how the duty is
being exercised - by monitoring bodies (such as Audit Scotland, the
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, or the Equality and Human
Rights Commission), an independent statutory commission, external
research consultants, or community representatives. One respondent
asked if the Equal Opportunities Committee would be tasked with
assessing how Scottish Ministers are exercising the duty. There was
also a call for a process that can be followed if someone wishes to
challenge a decision made on the basis that it did not demonstrate
due regard.

Budgetary analysis and reporting

A range of suggestions for improving budgetary analysis and
reporting were provided. These included:

Incorporate socioeconomic considerations into equality
budgeting processes (although the need for improvements to these
processes was also identified)

Make more use of participatory budgeting and human rights
budgeting

Consider the cumulative impact of budget savings on
communities

Assess the impact of all strategic budget decisions on
reducing child poverty

Introduce outcome based spending (although a variety of
challenges to doing so were identified, and it was suggested that
this may be best applied to budgetary decisions that are long
term and focused on generational change)

Direct funding based on area deprivation

Build a better evidence base about longer-term savings to the
public purse and spending through effective early action and
intervention.

Cross-cutting, realigned budgets

Further develop the Social Impact Tool developed by the
Universities of Glasgow and Heriot Watt

Learn from the process of considering community benefits in
procurement

Learn from Glasgow Caledonian University's use of qualitative
methods to understand the social risks of spending cuts for three
vulnerable population groups in a small area

Learn from initiatives on budget analysis from other
countries
e.g. Newcastle City Council's 'A
Fair Budget for a Fairer City'

Most public authorities will not have the necessary expertise
and resources to do this analysis

Information is not currently available in a format (such as
including unit costs) that allows for budget decisions to be
fully scrutinised.

Guidance and support

The existing guidance on the equality duty was cited as a
helpful model. Respondents made a range of specific suggestions for
what should be included in guidance on the duty, including:

Mapping and explanation of all of the different acts /
duties, their links and interdependencies, and desired outcomes
to be carried out by Scottish Government. Prevents duplication of
effort from all individual bodies having to do this, and is also
likely to be helpful to citizens and communities.

Clarifying what human rights are engaged by the delivery of
this duty

Easy read flow charts

Laying out what is expected (mandatory), and what is
suggested with scope for interpretation (optional).

It was suggested that there could be two formats of guidance
– a more detailed one for analysts and a briefer training
document for the wider workforce. It was also proposed that the
guidance should be available online, the guidance should be
consulted on separately, and it should be regularly reviewed to
ensure its ongoing relevance.

Whilst some respondents stated that the guidance needed to be
prescriptive, others emphasised that it should be descriptive
rather than prescriptive, as different public authorities will need
different approaches, and many organisations already have
successful initiatives in place

Some respondents wished to see the establishment of an advisory
body to undertake knowledge sharing, problem solving and the
development of meaningful participation processes, either instead
of, or in addition to, a fixed set of guidance. There was also a
request for institutions to receive feedback on their reports.

Other suggested methods of support included:

Cross-party working groups

Roundtable discussions

Best practice network or knowledge exchange facility

Seminars and conferences - the annual conference organised by
the Scottish Government for equality duty practitioners was cited
as helpful

Many respondents welcomed the case studies provided in the
consultation document, and asked that a wider range of examples
could be developed, jointly with public authorities. It was
suggested that these should cover:

Decisions taken by Scottish Government departments

More ambitious and stretching actions

Examples of work using Citizens Juries and Participatory
Budgeting

The multi-dimensional approach needed to address the complex
nature of socioeconomic disadvantage

How positive interventions aimed at wide segments of the
population can widen inequalities if no impact assessment is
carried out
e.g. rent increases following
improvement of social housing

A wider focus than just employment and employability

The Equality and Human Rights Commission advised that it is
currently commissioning research into the socio economic duties
currently in force under the Children & Young People Act 2014,
the Community Empowerment Act 2015 and the Education Act 2016. The
purpose of the research, due to be published in December 2017, is
to learn from the operation and impact of these duties.

It was suggested that training and awareness-raising would be
required for a variety of groups, including elected members, and
public sector staff at both strategic and practice levels, across a
diverse range of functions, including Directors of Finance and
Directors of Planning. Public awareness-raising was also
proposed.

It was also suggested that public authorities would need to be
effectively resourced to implement the duty. The estimated staff
resource set out in the Child Poverty (Scotland) Bill Financial
Memorandum was cited.

Various practical tools that could potentially support the
implementation of the duty were mentioned, including
NHS Health
Scotland's 'Informing Investment to reduce health Inequalities' and
'Maximising the role of the
NHS Scotland in
reducing health inequalities', and the Oxfam Humankind Index Policy
Assessment Tool. One respondent provided a detailed 'Local
Democracy Analysis Template'.

Scottish Government response

The comments made in relation to Section 3 are very useful and
in some cases very detailed. We will use this feedback to inform
the development of guidance. In particular, we would like to note
now that it is our intention that training and awareness-raising
will be provided to those public bodies subject to the duty to help
develop and inform best practice. And, as requested, we will expand
the set of case studies, in collaboration with stakeholders, to
make the guidance more practical in focus.

We also note the comment about different types of guidance for
different audiences, and the strong need for an analytical
dimension. We will look at how the Equality Evidence Finder can be
expanded to make socio-economic data and analysis more readily
available; and of course the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation
continues to provide a range of rich data and our analysts are
committed to training and outreach to enable local groups and
public bodies of all kinds to make the best use of this
resource.

The comments on the importance of poverty commissions and local
community input and feedback have been noted in particular. We will
say more about this in the progress report on the Fairer Scotland
Action Plan, which is to be published shortly.